Ricks Picks header image

Dissent Will Survive Fallout from Arizona


We’ve shied away from the Arizona shooting because we didn’t want to open a can of worms in the Rick’s Picks forum.  However, because the tragic rampage at a Tucson political gathering has completely dominated the news since Saturday, when it occurred, and because the shockwaves are likely to reverberate for weeks, months or even years, we’ll say a few words and leave it at that. We were initially surprised that a news story about a nut with a gun who murders six people at a political forum and seriously injures 14 others could take flight the way this story has. With all the fatal shootings that have occurred in recent years — in schools and office buildings, at social gatherings, religious enclaves, Army bases, post offices, college campuses and elsewhere– we’d have thought Americans had grown inured to news of yet another murderous spree.

What’s different about this spree, apparently, is that its purpose, if indeed there was one, has been conflated with the angry political mood over President Obama’s attempt to radically remake the nation’s health care system. One might have thought the political furies had spent themselves when Obamacare slashed and burned its way through Congress last year in search of votes. But with mounting threats to dismantle the legislation piece-by-piece starting to gel, perhaps it was inevitable that those who have supported Obamacare all along would unleash a new round of salvos at those who would deign to challenge it.  In fact,  the barrage they’ve launched is more like an A-bomb in that it would risk damaging the entire social and legal infrastructure of free speech in order to silence Obamacare’s most strident critics.

 Redneck, or Zen

One of them, as we know, is Sarah Palin, and it is upon her that the political left has trained its most lethal fire.  Before the shooting, she was merely the most visible leader of citizens angered by the radical politics of the Obama presidency; now, she is being demonized as the leader of a lynch mob – or at the very least, the inspiration and guiding light of a deranged college student-turned-assassin. Although we doubt that the left will succeed in stifling political dissent sufficiently to shield Obamacare, they may already have succeeded in ending Palin’s political career. If she responds with her characteristic take-no-prisoners feistiness, she will sound like a redneck; but if she tries the Zen approach, she will lose her political voice. Palin’s ability to galvanize crowds may have been lost forever, and with it her shot at the Presidency. The irony is that no few Republicans, including some who are as conservative as Palin, will be relieved to see her out of the 2012 race.    

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

Please do not ask trading questions!

  • roger erickson January 13, 2011, 2:04 pm

    No context is as simple as the majority ever claims. Ask Ben Franklin, George Washington, TJ & Patrick Henry – not to mention Andrew Jackson. This video bears out our responsibilities & questions our loyalties.


    Do you suppose Nixon – who wasn’t dumb – was really that easily used? Or, alternatively, actually that cruel?
    Dismal choices to consider. Is consent that is contrary to public purpose in other areas also being engineered?

    Looking at the United States with new eyes? Indeed. What’s the harm in honestly looking. Why the fear of non-engineered consent? What would Ben, Tom, Patrick, Tom Paine, Andrew & George say? George Mason?

    We can always do better by being honorable. Long, McCarthy, Nixon & others are aberrations that weaken, not strengthen our more perfect union. Personally, I’m more worried about the allegiance to either “left” or “right” bandied here. I’d rather invest in reasonable, honorable people regardless of what they have to say. Together, such people make a whole that is more than the sum of it’s parts.

    There is no point of stability in the natural world that is not a dynamic equilibrium between conflicting forces!

    Anyone with the hubris to claim otherwise is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  • Dale January 13, 2011, 8:28 am

    I think it is obvious that the Liberals now have Palin squarely in their “sights”, I mean “crosshairs”, er, I mean they have made her their “target”, opps, can’t use that word either. They are trying to “assassinate” her charact…no, not assassinate really, they want to “eliminate” her as an, oops, I didn’t mean that either; I meant to say that their rhetoric has become so “explosive”, er, “fiery”…crap, did it again, “strike” that… I mean forget what I just said. Their “attacks” so far are… I mean they have drawn their “battle” line… no not a good choice of words either. Oh, well, never mind. I must go dig out my old thesaurus so that I can tell you what I really mean in a way that maybe you will all understand 🙁

  • joey January 13, 2011, 7:58 am

    Moderator Rick wrote in the essay: “conservative as Palin”

    My mind had never before put the words “conservative” and “Palin” together.

    Palin started a sales tax in Wasilla to pay for a government-run ice rink so her kids would have a subsidized rink. A real conservative would have done it through private enterprise or private donations.



    Trust me, Joey, she’s a Conservative. RA

  • Steve January 13, 2011, 7:53 am

    Rick, Thanks for reprinting the real story “. . .guns against knives. . .” on Obama and the U’Ren Progressive Movement [Oregon Communist Party] also called the Oregon System, ie; democrats et.al. What better person could there be; than the one who abhores governmental abuses like occur daily in congress now. I call on congress to stand down from their destruction of the Constitution. Obama can do something great by stopping the abuses of the federal government and demand that persons take responsibility for themselves. “We can be better” is on Obama’s shoulders and no other.

  • Rick Ackerman January 13, 2011, 7:47 am

    Who, in predicting hand-to-hand combat with his political enemies, said the following:

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”

    Here’s a link to the great Ann Coulter essay from which the above was taken:



    Oops. I see that Wesley had already answered the question I posed.

  • Dennis Tonevi January 13, 2011, 7:17 am

    There’s one important lesson to be learnt here: if you want to eliminate a politician with a nine to the head, you’d better use a silver bullet. Maybe a wooden stake through the heart also in the case of presidents. Where can I get one of those cool bumper stickers: “I Shoot And I Don’t Vote”

  • Wesley January 13, 2011, 5:59 am

    Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

    That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

    [Editor’s note: This blog post was published in 2008. In the wake of Saturday’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., a number of lawmakers and others have called for toning down the political rhetoric and President Barack Obama led a moment of silence for the victims.]

  • mikeck January 13, 2011, 1:56 am

    dennis wrote: “You are right mickek, I don’t get it. Seriously, the Nazi’s and Stalin, etc, etc, killed hundreds of millions of people because there were restrictions on handguns?”

    I can clearly see that there is no need to bother you with facts. Had you taken the time to study the facts a bit, you would have noticed that guns were almost always removed before the tyrants came to power or showed their true colors.

    It appears that we have many here now who can hardly wait to accommodate the tyrants who are clearly showing their colors to anyone who bothers to look. Also, it ain’t just about handguns, but they do come in handy when the tyrant’s thugs start kicking down doors and the shotguns have already been emptied.

    Yes, some good guys will die in those exchanges, but the goons will soon notice that there are fewer of them than the last time they went on a raid. BTW, I say the odds of it coming to this are slim and none as long as they know we are armed.

    If you want your progeny to be slaves, I can only hope that you are not anywhere near enough to my adobe that the thugs will not be at least somewhat reluctant when they come by here.

    • dennis January 13, 2011, 3:16 pm

      “I can clearly see that there is no need to bother you with facts. Had you taken the time to study the facts a bit, you would have noticed that guns were almost always removed before the tyrants came to power or showed their true colors. ”
      And the rooster crows before the sun comes up

    • dennis January 13, 2011, 3:31 pm

      I wish you would be specific about who these “thugs and tyrants” are. Is it Barney Frank who will come at us with a knife or a bazooka, to collect taxes,so we will need a gun to defend ourselves? Do you see “them” as misguided, brainwashed marines armed to teeth and turned against “us” — and thus, as you say, it will be about “more than just handguns”. Just who is coming, and what do you think they want? Be brave and tell us who exactly you feel threatened by. I think they deserve to know so at least they can make an informed decision; and unless “they” know how can the weapons you have possibly be the deterrent you claim they are?

  • Larry January 13, 2011, 1:15 am

    I was not a fan of Mrs. Palin from the start. However this situation may have a backlash from the Tea Party that could have more harm to the Democrat’s. Circa another Glen Beck “revival in DC” that caused the Republican’s to win seat’s this year.

  • Dave January 12, 2011, 11:02 pm

    Yes, Jared Lee Loughner is crazy. He stated fiat currency not backed by gold or silver is worthless. Where could he have gotten these insane ideas? A few ECT shock treatments will stop these thoughts.

    • Robert January 13, 2011, 1:04 am

      He clearly got these ideas from the same insane Constitutional Architects that documented Article 1, Section 10… 🙂

      Or, maybe he got them from Alan Greenspan’s 1966 paper, or Bob Zoelick from the World Bank, or Doug Hoenig from the Kansas City Fed…

  • Steve January 12, 2011, 10:04 pm

    I’ll shove off for awhile with this/these last statement(s):

    The sheriff in Arizona is a bum in breach of fiduciary duty to the citizens. This bum had numerous chances and did not do his job. Focus on that fact! If one is not willing to make a stand and see the sheriff’s crimes /breach/abuse punished – one deserve what one gets. ‘If one fails to know, understand, and exercise one’s Rights; you subject yourself to tyranny, and SO DESERVE’ attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

    The Crime Prevention study of displacement establishes that a sick radical will go where the easiest pickings are. This shooter would not have gone to a Sara Palin rally because the odds were that he would have been killed.

    Democracy is a tyranny run by despots leading to violent destruction [violence]; Mr. President James Madison Federalist Paper #46.

    Those who speak democracy, spread democracy, live democracy will always be violent when their abuses are not successful.

    • Mark Uzick January 14, 2011, 12:52 pm

      I disagree with your belief that democracy is at fault. Democracy only ensures that, for good or for ill, our government is merely a reflection of the general character of Americans. It’s the only means by which to change government without resorting to violence.

      Our rulers are listening to their constituents who have placed them in power. The fact is that Americans have been brain washed by the illegal “public education system” and the leftist news media. The majority of Americans are:

      1) receiving one or more “entitlements”

      2) getting protections from business or employment competition

      3) have government employment or employment by government contractors.

      Obviously, the fight for liberty will be a steeply uphill one, but it’s not going to succeed as a violent fight with the government; that only plays into the hands of the socialists. The revolution for liberty must be within our own hearts and minds; we must convince ourselves, our friends and neighbors and our loved ones that liberty is the value that makes most other values even possible.

      A people get the government that they want – Non-violent change is the great virtue of democracy. – The socialists didn’t overthrow our way of life through violent revolution, but feeling threatened that their reign may be over when their policies collapse the economy, they are looking and hoping for signs of violence from their liberty loving opponents so that they can cancel democratic change and use the power of the state to crack down on their opposition.

      The events in Tucson have nothing at all to do with the fight either for or against liberty and so the calls for civility in political discourse are clearly nothing more than evidence that the leftists are hoping for civil strife and are willing to pretend that it’s happening so that they can crack down on our few remaining civil liberties.

      When civil unrest happens, it will not be liberty lovers rioting in the streets; it will be the leftists and union goons attacking private property and innocent people so that the liberty lovers will feel they have no other choice but to accept a crackdown on civil liberties.

      We must protect our democracy. If we can expose people like the police chief and others calling for civility as propagandists attempting to equate liberty with anarchy, then we can shame them into silence by means of ridicule and scorn, thereby keeping our democratic institutions alive. Then, if and when Americans are truly ready for a return to liberty, it will happen as a matter of course in a simple reflection of their character.

  • William ONeill January 12, 2011, 9:41 pm

    I have study Federal Legislation for over 40 years and its affects of the social interaction of our enviroment.I find since most voters have No concept of federal legislation and what they now is fed to them by various interest groups who control the mass media and both Political party to much sure their interest comes first and that the Masses paid for it.In the latter this has happening by mostly Repub’s last 40 years that not took away all the REAL funding from S.S./medicare,civil service and other federal retirement programs but has also rape the Industry sectors of good paying Jobs and shipping overseas and made sure thoses Co’s paid less Federal taxes for doing so.They also pass legislation and change tax codes and index CPI to change REAL COL that has enhance the ruling classes with almost 75% of the GDP and put all middle classes consumers classes into a economic submission State of DEBT that will lead to the end of our material way of living and massive social unrest!

  • warren January 12, 2011, 9:24 pm

    Eccl 1:9

  • Rick Ackerman January 12, 2011, 8:53 pm

    You’re welcome, Robert. I had serious reservations about airing the topic, but in retrospect I’m glad that I was able to provide a civil environment to discuss it. Incidentally, I have censored only a single post so far — one that impugned all Fox-watchers as “deranged.”

  • fallingman January 12, 2011, 8:28 pm

    I applaud the civil discussion on an inherently inflammatory topic.

    If I might offer one more comment.

    Mr. Cavolo is clearly right when he says armed citizens don’t have a chance when the weaponry and “intelligence” capabilities of the state are amassed against them. But, that’s not the point…until we get to the end game.

    Which government is less likely to overstep its bounds? The one that know its citizens are helpless or the one that knows there are millions of guns held by private citizens…and they’ll use them?

    I live in the South…and around here if you go snooping around somebody’s place, you’re liable to get a couple of rounds shot in the air as a greeting just to let you know what the score is … just in case. You think the Powerz That Be don’t know this? You think it wouldn’t dissuade them at least a little bit?

    Why do you think the politicians are so keen to take away the guns? So we’ll be safer? I’m sure some genuinely believe we would be safer and pursue gun laws for that reason. The evidence I’ve seen clearly contradicts them. The real players just want the path cleared so they can impose whatever they want on us without fear of reprisal.

    • Steve January 12, 2011, 9:39 pm

      Fallingman – speak defeat and one is defeated.

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 11:44 pm

      fallingman, you raise another great point that I believe gets lost and overlooked, proximity. Why is it that the FEDS can run roughshod over us at will, and yet the locals, for the most part, seem to be more deterred in doing so? After all, the FEDeral sociopaths got their start locally, right? Where were the signs when they were local? The locals, as opposed to the FEDS, aren’t protected in the numerous and nebulous ways that their counterparts are shielded. Locals are going to pick up on things faster because there is accountability and the “word” gets out as to what’s going on behind the scenes. The folks then begin to take action and the problem is corrected for a time. The locals know that the folks, especially here in the South, are armed and aren’t going to roll over so that they can create a personal fiefdom as easily as the FEDS can maintain theirs. If it weren’t for that the locals would just have to pay up the chain to rent their “territory”. I’m sure that many of them do too but the fact that they haven’t encroached nearly as much as the FEDS should suggest something significant to us.

    • fallingman January 13, 2011, 7:16 pm


      If you’re speaking from the perspective of general semantics / transformational grammar, I get the point. But please, let me be clear. I have zero interest in using force or counterforce to achieve political objectives. First of all, it isn’t civilized, and second, it won’t work. So, “defeat” doesn’t enter the equation.

      That said, just because I don’t wanna duke it out with them if it comes to that doesn’t mean I give up. I’m just taking a different tack. I have withdrawn my consent and support. I am boycotting. I will passively resist if it comes to that. Let ’em try to club a nation of passive resisters into submission and see how well that works.

  • Robert January 12, 2011, 8:13 pm

    To Rick Ackerman:


    This topic is (obviously) not germaine to the theme and purpose of your website/business (there are no short term trading pivots or investing themes to be gleaned from this episode that I can see), but as I’ve stated before- this forum has a unique collection of minds who exchange their differing viewpoints in the most collaborative and diplomatic fashion I’ve seen.

    I, for one, appreciate your willingness to offer a common discussion space for us to express our viewpoints on this topic, and the various societal themes and memes that it touches, even if they are not really economic in nature…

    • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 9:24 pm

      I second that. If for no other reason, I get to better understand the why of my chosen philosophy. I’ve learned so much through this forum, simply because of the articles and the many here that make me think harder than usual!

    • Jim N January 13, 2011, 3:16 am

      Yes, thanks Rick for taking the risk. This discussion has honed my own opinions. It is important to take time to know why you believe what you do and to be honestly challenged without getting your head taken off.

  • Dennis January 12, 2011, 8:05 pm

    Palin’s ability to galvanize crowds may have been lost forever, and with it…
    her shot at the Presidency??????
    Great play on words yet no pun intended.
    I’m sure.

  • DG January 12, 2011, 7:21 pm

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

    — Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

    I believe there must be at least one hundred million dissidents who would agree……

    or, further support of the “gun freaks”:

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
    – Chairman Mao Zedong (Tse-tung)

    • dennis January 12, 2011, 9:11 pm

      DG: I love that quote. I only wish he left out the words “free” and had left out the word “government” and just stayed with ‘tyranny’ or perhaps ‘all unbearable tyranny” . Perhaps we might have prevented one of the most deadly and destructive wars in history, or at least contained it, geographically speaking– since the slaves maybe could have had a chance going man-o-mano with those insisting on terrorism as the primary means to keep them enslaved. And of course, “long live the Chairman”!

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 9:37 pm

      DG: I love that quote. I only wish he left out the words “free” and had left out the word “government” and just stayed with ‘tyranny’ or perhaps ‘all unbearable tyranny” . Perhaps we might have prevented one of the most deadly and destructive wars in history, or at least contained it, geographically speaking– since the slaves maybe could have had a chance going man-o-mano with those insisting on terrorism as the primary means to keep them enslaved. And of course, “long live the Chairman”!

      Dennis, you do recall that Jefferson owned slaves, right? 21st century mindset applied to 18th century, I’m not sure that’s a great way to understand history.

  • fallingman January 12, 2011, 7:17 pm


    1) DG…antidepressants. Exactly. I’ll wait to hear if they’re involved yet AGAIN. That is, unless the drug lords that run Big Pharma can cover it up.

    2) When guns are banned, it ain’t only the criminals that’ll have guns, it’s the government. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, you don’t know much history. Unarmed populations are, by definition, defenseless against assaults by government on your rights, your freedom, and your person.

    Mercurious…as always…thanks for your excellent post.

    3) I don’t like guns. I don’t own any, despite being an NRA qualified “Expert” marksman. I will soon be buying some. Partly because my girlfriend’s house was just broken into and all her jewelry stolen, but mostly because pretty soon it’ll be too late to acquire them legally. Choose to be unarmed if you like. Not me. Not anymore.

    What am I supposed to do if a burglar gains entry to the house and I’m there? Do I throw stuff at him? Do I call the police and wait 20 minutes? Or do I do I blast the sonofabitch in the knees with a couple loads of rock salt? Maybe you philosophers of the government-loving persuasion can advise?

    4) Politics institutionalizes theft and violence and tries to legitimize it. You’ll never have a kumbaya moment in DC. Both camps are heavily armed thugs and care about nothing besides money and power. The veneer of civility in politics is a sham and will be stripped away in the years to come when the need arises to force people to comply with the dictates of our rulers.

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 7:34 pm

      Great points fallingman.

  • Robert January 12, 2011, 7:11 pm

    “You don’t have to be a Birther or a Truther to dissent.”

    Another one-line nugget of pure wisdom.

    I’ve lived in Arizona my whole life. I’m a prototypical white-collar, suburban, Starbucks drinking, Docker’s wearing Professional College graduate yuppie-type….who shares more philosophy in common with the stereotypical gun-toting, deer hunting, boot wearing survivalist that most of you equate your mental image of a “typical” Arizona resident with.

    It doesn’t matter the town, or the state, or the nation, or the continent- this society is being corrupted by those who beleive that their sensibilities are any “better” than anyone else’s.

    Take away the guns and you eliminate crime? HAH! – I say “Take away the lawyers, and pretty soon there would be no crime- there would only be people LIVING their lives as they would choose…”

    In other words, there would be LIBERTY.

    Abstraction is the enemy we all face.

    There is no war on drugs, because drugs can not fight back. It is a war on the freedom of personal choice.

    There is no war on terror because terror is only a product of fearful minds. It is a war on knowledge and personal empowerment.

    The only war we legitimately fight is a war on sanity- and it’s being waged by those who desperately want the sane to believe that there is something seriously wrong with them.

    Jared Loughner was obviously insane.

    If it was society that pushed him over the brink, then it is ALL OF US who should feel most ashamed by his actions.

    Archeology, Anthropology, and Genetics all suggest that the process of evolution explodes periodically during episodes where life trancendentally breaks free of seemingly inpenetrable boundries. These boundries may be physical, geographical, or climatological…

    Today we as a species seem to be facing the question of whether the boundries can be psychological and behavioral as well.

    Will we all destroy ourselves before we realize that there is no good reason to destroy ourselves… ?

    • Michael Lewinski January 12, 2011, 8:12 pm


      I am a Hoosier Tea Party activist and writer. Permission to quote from within this text?

      “I’ve lived in Arizona my whole life. I’m a prototypical white-collar, suburban, Starbucks drinking, Docker’s wearing Professional College graduate yuppie-type….who shares more philosophy in common with the stereotypical gun-toting, deer hunting, boot wearing survivalist that most of you equate your mental image of a “typical” Arizona resident with.

      It doesn’t matter the town, or the state, or the nation, or the continent- this society is being corrupted by those who beleive that their sensibilities are any “better” than anyone else’s.

      Take away the guns and you eliminate crime? HAH! – I say “Take away the lawyers, and pretty soon there would be no crime- there would only be people LIVING their lives as they would choose…”

      In other words, there would be LIBERTY.”

      You can call or email @ 260 687-0185 [email protected]


      Michael Lewinski,
      PR Director
      FreedomMaker Coalition of Indiana

    • Robert January 13, 2011, 12:36 am

      “Permission to quote from within this text? ”

      Sure- fine by me.

  • Michael Lewinski January 12, 2011, 7:00 pm

    Let me see if I understand this. Our God-given right to life should not be protecetd with the individual’s right to bear arms because the mentally unstable might cross the line. Our God-given right to liberty should not be protecetd with the individual’s right to free speech because a tough political debate could push the mentally unstable across the line into violence. We abandon our God-given right to happiness [property] because someone might do something very terrible and stupid?

    I wonder if we should abandon the free markets because the mentally unstable might cross the line and commit acts of violence due to the unequal distribution of wealth they may perceive. Shall we ban churches because the mentally unstable might preceive religion as a threat and cross the line and burn down churches and kill worshipers? Shall we ban cars because a mentally unstable terrorist might use a SUV as a weapon?

    What planet does this line of logic come from? We are in the middle of a New American Revolution being fought between the makers and the takers. The rhetoric is hot on both sides, yet no one is calling for violence. Our political battles are still being fought out at the polls. What will we call this place we live in when we eliminate risk by banning any thing that could be perceived as an encouragement to the mentally unstable to commit acts of violence?

  • len January 12, 2011, 6:44 pm

    When there were no guns, there were kings and surfs-emperors and peasants. I’d rather have my freedom. The rest of the world beckons the USA at the first sign of tyranny, so many hypocrites.

  • brutlstrudl January 12, 2011, 6:27 pm
  • JP January 12, 2011, 6:10 pm

    The left tried its pathetically best (to no avail) to milk the tragedy to score political points. They failed miserably and demeaned themselves in the process. Krugman proved his ignorance and incompetence extends well beyond the bounds of economics. He is an embarrassment to the NY Times.

    This morning I read a thought-provoking piece on Zerohedge today. I encourage you to give it a read.

    The Giffords Shooting Changes Nothing
    by Giordano Bruno of Neithercorp Press

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 7:02 pm

      “He is an embarrassment to the NY Times. ” That’s an incredibly strong statement.

  • Rich January 12, 2011, 5:54 pm

    “her shot at the Presidency” Really Rick?

    Serious researchers like John Lott found guns reduce crime, perhaps one reason (along with the Constitution) for Heller v US making guns legal in DC again.
    Guns were illegal in DC and Mexico before 28,000 people, including many government employees, were killed by guns in recent years.
    Maybe it is a cultural drug turf thingie. And who ran the Drugs in caskets from the Golden Triangle, Colombia and Afghanistan since the Chinese Opium Wars for silver?
    Re Jared Lee not having a mental health history, there were five calls on separate occasions to the Sheriff to physically arrest and remove JL from Community College. The Sheriff even brought him home to his parents with a letter from the CC saying JL would not be allowed back until after a mental evaluation.
    It does not get much clearer than this that Jared Lee was a danger. The same Sheriff and establishment trying to politicize this to pass more unConstitutional laws dropped the ball.
    Another former AZ Sheriff named Mack pointed out US Rep Gifford and Federal Judge Roll were former conservative GOP members who carried a concealed gun and fought illegal immigration. Gifford and the girl on Student Council, daughter of a pro baseball scout, born on 9-11-1 and killed the day before 1-11-1, had no chance, but an armed gun owner hero who held Jared Lee down did not shoot him.
    That Alex Jones saw an 80% probability this was a Squeaky Fromme, John Hinckley, Charles Manson, Sara Jane Moore, Lee Harvey Oswald, Unabomber mind control handler op, seems to say more about AJ and David Icke, until we realize six assassination attempts on US Presidents used the insanity defense. Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the CIA, Sara Jane Moore was an FBI informant and William Randolph Hearst employee, and the Unabomber with a 167 IQ was a weekly visitor to John Murray, a Harvard CIA psychologist, while he went to Harvard.
    Since when does the FBI rule out a person of interest? Oh yeah, the John Doe of the Murrah Building Bombing where we were to believe Timothy McVeigh did it all by himself despite substantial evidence to the contrary, the Arab Arizona Flight Trainings leading up to 9-11, and the Shoot to Kill Orders at Ruby Ridge where FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Vicky Weaver in the head and killed her as she held their baby, manslaughter case removed from local court to be dismissed by Federal Court, with bonuses and promotions going to FBI Deputy Director Larry Potts, Senior FBI Director Michael Kahoe destroying evidence and 4 FBI agents taking the Fifth.
    This of course led to the BATF FBI Army Tank Waco Incineration and the pre-dawn SWAT raid on Elian Gonzalez with machine guns.
    No wonder some dare point out governments killed more people than any other entity, hundreds of millions. You don’t have to be a Birther or a Truther to dissent.
    Meanwhile, with energy up 3.9% last month, oil and silver seem to be trending higher, with crude targeting $105 and Silver new highs…

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 7:00 pm

      Great points Rich. Thanks for having the “blanks” to actually state the sub-surface that all too many shy away from. I notice that most of the pro-statist types are the ones that are swallowing the media’s pre-planned agenda delivery all the way. I guess it’s the nature of some to trust the authority, the large and powerful, and to turn so many “things” over to them. I suppose they inherently resent those of us that refuse to do so. Were it not that our fate, as it stands now, was tied to theirs…

  • Robert January 12, 2011, 5:52 pm

    Rick Ackerman:
    “We were initially surprised that a news story about a nut with a gun who murders six people at a political forum and seriously injures 14 others could take flight the way this story has. ”

    – Really? I wasn’t. As soon as any “connected” Washington insider is involved in any way, the story is news. The incestuous relationship between Wall Street, Washington, and the press virtually guarantees it.

    “Palin’s ability to galvanize crowds may have been lost forever, and with it her shot at the Presidency. ”

    – Ahhhh, we can only hope. Sarah Palin is a caricature of the sheer stupidity that is people (politicians) who think that they know what other people are thinking or feeling.
    In other words, she is an actor; not quite talented enough for Hollywood. She needs to live her own life and stop worrying about how other people are living theirs.

    “I and 99% of the other foreigners living here in China love the fact that there are no guns in sight anywhere anytime… Guns have no place in this world, in today’s context in the hands of private citizens. Ask the police. ”

    The Police are, themselves, citizens- yes? Why do you “elevate” public officials to some arbitrary higher status (ie- “They” should have guns, “We” should not)…?

    You ever watch old re-runs of “Adam-12”? Funny how the cops of the 60’s stack up against today, isn’t it?

    Cops are increasingly militant citizens of the most dangerous type, IMHO- they are militant out of righteousness.

    Mario, your premise that there should be an armed “authority” that lords over the “peaceful unarmed populace” nauseates me, for it takes the essence of the responsibility for self-preservation and self defence away from the individual and grants it to those who exhibit the ugliest facet of human nature- the desire to control others, and to kill them if they do not relent that control.

    You equate the Chinese Police State with Security and comfort, so why stop there? If you are that happy in China, then North Korea should be pure Nirvana… right?

    “Don’t be shy to call this domestic terrorism, because that’s what it is.”

    You said a mouthful, there. This kid was undeniably insane, but not because he killed a Politician. He was insane for reasons that might have also corrupted the judgment of the people who dumped the tea into Boston harbor. In other words, every revolutionary is insane by someone else’s biased viewpoint.

    No, this nut job was insane exclusively for turning his weapon on innocents- you know, the ones that are only being mentioned in the sidebars of the numerous news stories- the ones that should actually be the focal point of the entire story.

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 6:43 pm

      Hi Robert….nice points, thanks much.

      I will add what nauseates me is that if I substituted the word Singapore or Japan for the word China in citing countries that don’t have guns, much of the vitriol on this board wouldn’t have been written in response to my arguments.

      This idea that citizens need guns to protect themselves “from each other” is lunacy itself. What a way to live. What a way to run a country. The guns will in no way whatsoever in the future, ever help you as a private citizen gathered up together to rebel against your oppressor. If you try, your oppressor will annihilate you with much bigger weapons. I’m sorry this bothers people, it bothers me too. But its a reality of life here and now, so I’ll take it as it is and do my best with the societal order that I can’t overcome. Of course if other people around me who wanted guns to rob me and could get them, I’d also want to get a gun to protect myself from them. Good heavens, no thanks to that set of rules. What an inane circular defense to the now irrelevant original intent of the right to bear arms. Yes it is true as pointed out that you or I or others may be the victim of a regime that decides to control or murder their citizens. We can go on and on about regimes controlling and murdering and pillaging the common citizens. Owning a gun stops none of that from happening in today’s world, so get rid of the problem in the first place. If a person thinks owning a gun protects them from a gov’t regime that unfortunately decides it is going to slaughter you, that’s not reality. Being scared of being shot because I honk my horn on an LA freeway, being a law enforcement officer that has to follow convoluted, twisted protocols because criminals have the right to have AK-47’s, having metal detectors in high schools, that on the other hand is reality and the convoluted world today which nauseates me and is far more important than the right to own a gun so I can go hunting for sport. No thanks.

      Cheers, Mario

    • Robert January 12, 2011, 7:28 pm

      Hi Mario,

      I appreciate (and share) your viewpoint about the process of escalation.

      “The guns will in no way whatsoever n the future, ever help you as a private citizen gathered up together to rebel against your oppressor. If you try, your oppressor will annihilate you with much bigger weapons.”

      That is 100% true, but I am prepared to die so long as it was on MY terms, and not theirs.

      A person has the right to kill others. That is a very ugly truth, but it is truth nonetheless. We as a society can only document and enforce the consequence of such action. Prevention is universally 100% impossible, so we expose our own shear stupidity in even trying.

      Just as we all have a right to defend ourselves, we also all have the right to attempt to oppress others against their wishes, but to exercise those rights with no consideration of the consequences is highly irresponsible (and dangerous to society I might add)

      I share the overwhelming philosophy of a large percentage of gun owners (including our founding fathers):

      “I own guns in anticipation that the moment will never come that I must be forced to choose whether or not to use them”

      Your argument that if the world were unarmed we would all have peace, would equally be true if everyone were equally armed… yes?

      If everyone had a gun, and no one used it, how bad would things be…?

    • Robert January 12, 2011, 7:34 pm

      Oh, and another point I agree with Mario on:

      I agree that the seemingly inbred passivism inherent in most Asians is the product of a superior intellectual construct.

      Having studied several forms of Martial Arts through the years, I can attest that the tranquility that arises from the confidence of self-awareness is worth more than all the bullion that may or may not be sitting in the basement vault at the New York Fed.

      Cogito ergo sum-

    • Carol January 12, 2011, 10:11 pm

      @ Robert

      “we also all have the right to attempt to oppress others against their wishes….”

      Well, no. We do not have the right to attempt to oppress others against their wishes, although I am glad to see your recognition that that would be bad for society as a whole. There is nothing in either the Constitution nor any religion of which I’m aware that gives anyone that right. Yes, there is a shadow self that would prefer to have all others do one’s bidding and it is that shadow self inclination, inherited in our DNA from natural selection – possibly with the exception of bonobos – that good parenting starts us on the road of to recognizing the rights of others. You know the shtick – my rights end at the tip of your nose and vice versa. To broadly paraphrase Twain, there’s an enormous difference between “right” and “inclination”.

      As for gun control, I find myself in the middle. There is no justification for possession of semi-automatic and automatic guns. None. Mr. Loughner had 30 rounds in his clip, he emptied it (pretty good shot, too, it would seem) and was going for another. I sincerely doubt that the 9-year-old girl had committed herself to any particular party. Who knows, she might have been saved had Mr. Loughner – who clearly exhibited mental instability to too many people in his various spheres – been denied any gun, much less a Glock. On the other hand, I live in the Adirondacks, a seasonal tourist area which means that those not fortunate to be owners are paid too little for too few months to be able to make it through the winter without recourse to hunting. I am not a hunter. I can shoot a .22 and a pistol – pretty good shot, but I’m one of those hypocrites who loves her meat but eschews the dirty work. I’m not proud of it but there it is – I take responsibility for it. Would that the likes of Ms. Palin were willing – just for once – to take responsibility for her own failings, her own hypocrisy, her own self-deceptions. Just once.

      With regard to the former police officer above who cited the fact that about 33% of police were drawn to the profession by a desire to control and abuse others, I agree even though I couldn’t have placed an estimate on the percentage. One need only look at the abuse cases when an officer reaches for a taser circumstances which indicate that more reasonable means of persuasion are available. Or that a taser is not the first step.

      As for Ms. Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the loon Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, et. al., I cannot wait for their 15 minutes to be over. I wish them no harm, I just wish they’d go away. I find if fascinating that none possess any historical knowledge to speak of, and are universally indisposed to take any responsibility for what they say. Whether Mr. Loughner was motivated by any particular speaker we may never know. Maybe crazy is just its own particular party. But there is no mistaking the fact that since Obama’s inauguration, the political temperature has gone up geometrically – far more than I thought possible after the unmitigated disaster that George W. Bush committed this country to for the foreseeable future. And as a full-blooded, in the DNA liberal, I’ve about had it with the baseline established by Rush Limbaugh that “we shouldn’t kill all the liberals. We should keep two of them on every campus as living fossils to remind us of what they stood for.”

      I’m not a great fan of Obama. I wish he had another 20 years on him so he’d take less crap. Or, he’s just another fine talker – I’m leaning towards this alternative. I voted for him with my eyes wide open, knowing that while he said he was against the Patriot Act and allowing the telecoms off scot-free in monitoring the entire U.S. citizenry, Obama voted for both anyway. The only person I can readily think of who has my respect is Russ Feingold and we see what Wisconsin thought of him this time.

      As for Obamacare, don’t overlook that its DNA is completely Republican from the Heritage Foundation, Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney. No, I don’t favor it. I join with the thousands of physicians who want Medicare for all. If you want to call that “socialism”, fine. But before you do, Google the 110th Congress’s H.R. 676, which is basically Medicare for all and do that math. Reworking the entire ragged patchwork that we call health care in America, it would cost employers about 40% less than what they paid before Romneycare, it would cost employees about 50% less than what they paid before Romneycare, money was included for policing Medicare fraud (hello Florida Governor Rick Scott), and it would put Medicare on a stronger, more sustainable footing. Personally, I don’t call paying out $15K per year for private health insurance, then hasseling with the private health insurance bureaucracy to see if everything is covered, no more risk of banruptcy (which follows you for 10 years) because of medical problems, no town fund drives that fall woefully short so your kid can have that operation he/she so badly needs…nah, that ain’t socialism. It’s good, solid, pay-attention-to-the-bottom-line conservative – reworking everyone’s budget and leaving that much more money for other things…like allowing employers more room to hire some other warm body.

    • Steve January 13, 2011, 1:00 am

      Carol; You are a great mind, and have been my defender from time to time if you are who I think you are. Because of your ability I give you this:

      Oregon Constitution Article I, sec. 27:

      The People shall have the right bear arms for the defence(sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

      United States Statute I requires that all between the ages of 16 and 45 are armed ready to defend the Nation, this is separate from the Organized Militia [state Guard] and the Federal Military Power. (this is the only requirement of Citzenship of a several State [beside obeying the Common Law in regard to persons and property])

      Prior to Heller the only supreme court case on the 2nd Article of Amendment stated that a sawed off shotgun was not a current military arm and not protected by the 2nd Article of Amendment’s protection of the citizen’s Unalienable Right to be armed with military weapons for defense of state and Self.

      The right of defense is ancient, and antecedent to the state in all regards. I find it quite repulsive that Americans want me to defend them, and then refuse to do their part for me. Anyone not obeying the requirement to be armed and ready is a liablity and if they do not wish to do their DUTY, they should be taxed for failure to perform. Hunting is “blood sport” and has nothing to do with subsistence gathering as an ancient and antecedent Right of Free Men. The Right of Defense is as old as the Rock needed.

    • Carol January 13, 2011, 3:38 am


      I apologize for not remembering whether I’ve defended you before or not. My entries here are infrequent depending upon time requirements and whether I’m motivated by the subject.

      As a lawyer, I must first tell you that the Oregon constitution is “inferior” to the U.S. Constitution and I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense, just as federal law that is intended to pre-empt the field of law is superior to state law. The founders intended a strong federal government while preserving state and individual rights as much as possible. As such, the Oregon constitution applies only to Oregon’s citizens.

      I live in NY state. Were you here and in trouble, I would do my best to aid in your defense but be advised that NY state law does not allow the use of deadly force. Nor am I personally disposed to use deadly force. I would not use a gun or a knife. I would, however, yell, kick, punch, bite or ride the bugger’s back – and in my youth I was crazy enough to do that. But under the laws of most jurisdictions, including NY’s, I am not REQUIRED to come to your aid. And if I do, I am required to not make the situation worse. So that’s the legal aspect here.

      I also have religious reasons for being unwilling to use a gun or deadly force. I know I need not remind you that the two freedom of religion clauses under the US Constitution’s First Amendment bar the state from acting against my religious freedom, with some exceptions that do not apply here. Taxation for not picking up a gun to defend your life would not be countenanced under the U.S. Constitution.

      I thought my middle ground was rather generous. I am absolutely opposed to civilians possessing automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The only reason those weapons exist is to kill people. That I will not do. Frankly, had I my druthers, I’m with Mario in my heart of hearts. There were no metal detectors or police officers in my elementary or high schools. Nor were they in airports, courts or government offices. Guns were not everywhere. We have become an extremely fearful society over the last 50 years or so and it only gets worse. That fact is only exacerbated by all the talking heads. There’s only so much news each day and the 24 hour “news” channels have to fill the time with something, don’t they? While I would disagree with Mario about the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government, I recognize the creeping authoritarianism in our own and it stems from both parties.

      Hunting here is no blood sport as you assert. For too many people in seasonal tourist towns, it is a necessity. And with 10% or more unemployment, I suspect that it is an abject necessity for more than you or I could contemplate.

      I would also posit that we have not only become a very fearful society, we’ve become a festishistic one, including matters of taxation and guns. I view taxation as membership dues and if taxes help to keep people sufficiently fed, clothed and sheltered, I’ll pay my share. How anyone can swallow the shibboleth that we must find cuts in some programs to fund $4 billion for the 9/11 first responders but don’t cock an eyebrow at the $140 billion to extend the Bush tax breaks for the top 2% is utterly beyond me. And to think that the next target for the top 2% is the working poor’s and middle class’s paid-in social security…unfortunately, I have no faith that Obama will stiffen his spine against that. He’s already given up 2% of next year’s funding – plays right into the hands of Wall Street which is just drooling over all the fees they can skim off all that moolah for…oh, be still my beating heart, sooooo many years…..

    • Larry D January 13, 2011, 9:44 pm

      @ Carol, you say:
      “…I am absolutely opposed to civilians possessing automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The only reason those weapons exist is to kill people… There were no metal detectors or police officers in my elementary or high schools. Nor were they in airports, courts or government offices. Guns were not everywhere. We have become an extremely fearful society over the last 50 years or so and it only gets worse.”

      Is that a legal concept, that those weapons are meant only to kill people? A similar argument was presented in the 1930’s in an attempt to place revolvers on the NFA. Because in every place and in every time, the distinction between hunting guns and military ones is a fiction. The military has used shotguns (a hunting weapon, no?) since the Civil War, possibly before. Bolt-action rifles were once the most advanced military weapons.

      Before 1968, guns WERE everywhere. In sock drawers, in wooden gun cases, 22 rifles strapped over kids backs as they walked to the gravel pit to shoot cans and bottles. WWII vets sent captured weapons of all kinds back home. You could even buy guns mail-order, and virtually every hardware store in the country sold guns.

      That people have become more fearful over the last 50 years is a ugly byproduct of the violence of the 1960’s – what grew out of the drug culture, also the riots. I suggest that the character of the culture has changed.

      Finally, Carol, Mario and Dennis: you might be interested to learn that that backward, fetishistic, lunatic nation of Switzerland has a fully automatic rifle and sealed case of ammunition in the home residence of every member of the military.

      What on earth could they be so afraid of?

    • Carol January 15, 2011, 5:48 pm


      Responding to your first sentence, I will not apologize for being a lawyer or for explaining the current law of NY state or the fact that the founders adjudged the Articles of Confederation to be insufficient for properly knitting together a nation or for explaining that while the Oregon constitution and statutes govern the citizens of Oregon subject to the “superior” federal laws that preempt the field or the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As I would not apologize to a patient upon writing a script to address what ails a patient, or a mechanic diagnoses and addresses a car’s failures. Steve wrote his honest objections to my earlier arguments based on his understanding, I think, of the law that governs him and I explained how his understanding is incorrect as to another state’s laws which govern me. And I did assert a willingness, as well as some experience, in coming to the aid of another person.

      Interestingly, you do not mention my moral and religious objections to civilian possession of assault weapons. Perhaps you don’t recognize that, as you have your opinions, your moral and religious code, so do I. Are our rights to hold such opinions unequal? I might add that recently in Massachusetts, a young boy attending a gun show run by a law enforcement officer shot himself in the head with an Uzi (sp?) and killed himself. Also recently, a promising young boy near where I live was playing with a neighbor boy whose father owned some guns. The gun went off and the first youngster was killed. So, my question is, where – if anywhere – do we draw the line? It’s okay to own (and load at a gun show) an Uzi? An AK47? Other assault weapons? Automatic and semi-automatic handguns? Is it okay with you that Mr. Loughner had over 30 rounds in his gun and shot and killed a 9 year old girl? What if his gun hadn’t been an automatic or semi-automatic? Would his first target have been that 9 year old? I’m not suggesting that she – or anyone – should have been his first target – and that’s where I object to Rep. Peter King’s proposed bill to somehow protect government officials more than anyone else. In the case of the local boy, is it enough that gun locks should be mandated or does that go too far for you? Clearly, as your side would seem to suggest, there is some inconvenience in having to load a gun if an intruder breaks in, but then again, NY denies the use of deadly force even for self defense. And do you see no difference between a shotgun that can hold no more than three shots and the 30-odd round Glock that Mr. Loughner used? Really? Or do you not see the difference between civilian and military use? Is there no distinction that you won’t blur to further your argument?

      As it happens, I learned to shoot both a .22 and a pistol as a young child at my uncle’s home. I honed my riflery skills at summer camp. Somewhere along the line, I concluded that the consequence of injuring another, even innocently or accidentally or in my mind justificably, would eat me alive. Or do I not have that right? And do you or anyone have the right to injure me innocently, accidentally or, in your mind, justifiably? I often hear the argument that we need to arm everyone. Well, welcome to the gunfight at the OK Corral. Shoot first and let God sort the bodies out? Bullets ricocheting – doesn’t that occur to you and the possible consequences of that? I’ve heard that we should arm teachers. What about senior prank day when some kid, crazy or not, breaks into the teacher’s desk and gets that gun and who knows what happens? And going back to Tucson, are you really okay with the fact that had Mr. Loughner hadn’t had a gun that could spray out 30 plus rounds that 16 people wouldn’t have been injured and 6 dead? You may cite history all you care to but your arguments hold no water.

      You argue that fear has overtaken the country, given rise, I suppose, in reaction to the 1960s’ upheaval. I submit that fear is part of human nature, reasons for fear have always existed, the upheavals of the 1960s are now no less than 41 years ago. I would further submit that fear is actively, hourly being stoked in this country. I submit that those who protested the Bush administration’s policies were peaceful, there were no guns in sight that I know of, and the protesters were routinely cordoned off blocks away from Bush’s appearances. In contrast, since Obama’s inauguration, right wing radio and Fox have repeatedly beaten the drum that Obama, or the liberals, were going to take everyone’s guns away. And still this goes on. The talkers on right wing radio and Fox are regularly targeting any person, any organization, democrats without distinction among moderates, blue dogs and liberals and using the language of incitement. This language started slowly. One of those who began it was Sen. Phil Gramm who said “we’ll hunt the Democrats like dogs”. Yes, there are three hours of MSNBC that schedule liberal talkers (Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow) but I don’t hear the language of violence from any of them when I listen. Disagreement? Indeed. Ridicule? Often. Violence? I don’t regularly listen to Ed Shultz but I don’t hear the language of violence from the other two and I certainly don’t hear the level of hatred and incitement from them. And while I have heard the phony justification from some who call themselves conservative that the left wing radicals had the violence of the ’60s so the right wing radicals, because that’s what they are, are entitled to equal time. Oddly enough, the right won’t countenance equal time on the airwaves. They cite the disappearance of left wing radio and TV as the result of “market forces”. Corporate monopoly is not market forces at work. Some commenter above said that the first thing an occupying force takes away from the occupied is its guns. Nonsense. The first thing an occupying force takes away from the civilian population is command and control, i.e. mass communications. And claiming some right to equal time for violence or the language of violence or the in-you-face brandishing of guns at political events as “equal time” and therefore justified is nonsense, as well.

      Regarding the case of Switzerland, not too many years ago some Swiss reservist took out his gun and shot and killed his family, if memory serves. What do the Swiss have to fear? He’s a reservist, therefore in that middle ground between civilian and military. As Switzerland is a sovereign nation (unlike Iraq? Or Pakistan? Or Yemen?), they have the right to enact and enforce their own laws as they see fit. Again, you confuse military and civilian.

      Finally, the text of the Second Amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This activist Supreme Court has excised the first two clauses of the amendment because of its results orientation. I’m not at all surprised. In Bush v. Gore it overturned well settled law against intervening in political questions in it overturned nearly a century in campaign finance law in Citizens United v. FEC because in its passion to achieve its partisan objectives it pursued a result-oriented opinion rather than one based on the plain language of the Constitution and decades or more of precedent – and those, Larry, ARE legal concepts. Or do you propose to do away with legality?

  • Mark Uzick January 12, 2011, 5:29 pm

    I’m really disappointed that so many chose to jump on the bandwagon with the area’s police chief, scapegoating guns as well as talk radio, Internet, television, other political venues and free speech in general for the violence in Tucson, when it is obvious that he is attempting to redirect responsibility from his own incompetence.

    The leftist news media is all to eager to give this incompetent fool coverage in their hypocritical exploitation of the tragedy. The shooter was a nut, and no instances of free speech, no matter how angry, from all the various ideological, philosophical and religious viewpoints had any bearing on his actions other than as an excuse to do what he would have done anyway.

    A gun ban would not have stopped him, but if only more people had exercised their right to bear arms, he might have been stopped before doing so much harm.

    • Robert January 12, 2011, 6:00 pm

      “but if only more people had exercised their right to bear arms, he might have been stopped before doing so much harm”

      -That’s a very interesting viewpoint.

      And I agree- the Police Chief is a tool. A faceless, shameless, shell of a real human being….

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 6:51 pm

      Mark, your closing remarks are spot on. If you haven’t seen it, search for a video involving a Marine on leave and how he was attacked along with his wife because he asked several youths to quiet down in a movie theater. He was attacked by a mob after the movie let out. The only thing that stopped it was another citizen that sprang into action with his handgun. Happened around Christmas time if memory serves.

  • CharlotteP January 12, 2011, 4:49 pm

    I am disappointed and dismayed that the debate gets reduced to simplex either or’s. It puzzles me that Rick and others on this list capable of complex financial analysis can’t put forth a more integrated analysis of the situation. It’s a toxic soup right now. And, to try to rationalize your argument that it was Sarah vs. it wasn’t Sarah was guns vs. wasn’t guns is just not thoughtful or responsible.

    This despicable character–enjoyed violence [as per his video post]–look to the media and it’s tolerance of bombardment of purient, gothic, morbid death stories every night on tv. He obviously had a sense of wanting to be part of or accepted or recognized by a community–the exponentially virial need for social media which in my opinion is feeding ego and nothing to do with ‘connectivity’ as it promoters claim. Again, a condition promoted by media freaks and all the advertising leaches that survive off that business. And, then you have the Palins’ and the Limbaughs and the Kelly creep that now feel that this rhetoric of gun culture makes them feel powerful and applied to political discourse. And, the myth that we all need to retain the right to bear arms when we now have populations of 10k per acre instead of one man per 10 acres and wild creatures. The lower 48 reality is not untamed Alaska. 200 years ago is not today. For the record: I disliked and still do Obama, the far liberal left, in it’s extreme; a lifelong Dem who voted Republican in protest.

    It’s NOT just the shooter in this instance; it’s all the violence against Giffords who stood tall and independent in her opinion and continuously received death threats and violence for it. It that’s all around, it doesn’t take much for a nutcase to be drawn like a magnet that this is an attractive way to get high off a culture which is now widely accepted.

    • dennis January 12, 2011, 11:47 pm

      You are right mickek, I don’t get it. Seriously, the Nazi’s and Stalin, etc, etc, killed hundreds of millions of people because there were restrictions on handguns? Not even in the movies have I seen anyone shoot down a Bomber or defend themselves against gas attacks using a pistol. And all those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki — if only they had guns. Oh, wait, the Vietnamese had lots of guns and we killed about 2 million of them. How about this for an idea: we organize and struggle for the de-militarization of governments, including our own. If ‘they’ are really coming to get us and they really want it badly, the ‘freedom’ you seem to be arguing for is the choice of throwing yourself, unarmed, under the tanks, or shooting first before it runs you over anyway. That’s way to Rambo-like for me, who would rather say to my daughter we moved out of our country because I wanted you to have a father, and the country no longer felt like the best place for us to be.
      .(Snow day, for me…way too much time on my hands; be well, everybody)

  • mikeck January 12, 2011, 4:42 pm

    Thankfully most of those here seem to get it regarding what happens when only the government has guns. For those who do not yet get it, check out some facts. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

    • dennis January 12, 2011, 10:09 pm

      Global investment bankers inject huge amounts of capital into the “government” in the form of ever increasing debt/indebtedness in large part to fund senseless wars that capture territory/resources. These ‘investors” make huge wartime profits through their private/corporate subsidiaries who sell weapons to the Pentagon– and if the wars are “successful”, also manage to stake a claim and profit handsomely from the control of and access to the resources thus captured.

      Many “Right-wing” leaning people (some decent some not; not unlike “left-wing” leaning folks) get pissed-off at ‘government spending”, or “deficits” but tend not to focus on those actually profiting from and promoting its expansion, or to oppose these wars (as patriots). In many cases they hate “big government” to the point where they see the need to preserve the right to bear arms at all costs in order to protect themselves against the “tyranny of government”, which keeps getting bigger and broker, as the cost of maintaining this system of capture-the-flag grows exponentially.

      Mostly the issue about gun control is about handguns and their regulation.
      Somebody help me out here. Is the idea that if this big government keeps getting bigger ‘they’ will try to take away something from us, in the form of taxes that they will need to impose on us ( or by other means confiscate what we own). And that’s because they have borrowed too much money from bankers to fight wars ‘we’ support, right? And the plan is to stop them with our pistols, right? Because technologically speaking I don’t see how that works. I mean, they have spent a lot of money on weapons, and my understanding is they are pretty sophisticated – like star wars stuff; lasers and drones, and night vision goggles, gunships. Is the idea that the warriors we have created (at least the ones not already maimed or dead) using the same equipment they are using in Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually win “there against them”, but they will never be able to win “here against us” using this same equipment ? Seriously I am confused.

  • DG January 12, 2011, 4:31 pm

    not from fox or other right winger- data from UN and EU:


    You don’t think your own state dept might be issuing warnings simply to make the UK look good do you? Like all those terror warnings the US had “code orange”, just to keep us sheeple quiet and scared in the flock, supporting war….

    • dennis January 12, 2011, 8:19 pm

      DG: from the very link you posted: UK homicide rate per 100k is 1.45. Off the charts lowest at 13th among the 10 countries data appearing on the site. I’ll save you the time of googling the data for the US: it is 5.1 per 100K., most involving guns. The discussion was about guns and homicides. What can I say?

    • dennis January 12, 2011, 8:43 pm

      (DG: And this from Wilkipedia, in case you want to make the old familiar argument about ‘but guns prevent other violent crimes. Or I guess you could argue that wilkipedia is jsut another left wing controlled ‘blog’ of sorts, in which case, I surrender, you win) Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used,[47][48][49] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[50] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesizes that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons.[51] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not overall robbery rates.[52][53] A significant number of homicides result as a by-product of another violent crime which escalates, with the offender going into the crime without a clear or sustained intent to kill or be killed.[49][54] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are also comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of
      gun ownership in those countries.[51][54]

    • Steve January 12, 2011, 8:53 pm

      Dennis, I don’t believe FBI statistics will support your statement on firearms. Oft times suicide is lumped into firearms deaths. Knives have always held the highest honor, though I have not seen the F.B.I. stats for awhile. How about vehicular assaults, and negligent deaths which is spin for “I intentionally drink and don’t want to be held responsible for killing others.”

    • Steve January 12, 2011, 8:55 pm

      Dennis, ignorance is bliss. When one takes a firearm one intends to use it.

  • dennis January 12, 2011, 4:11 pm

    Internet/Web entertainment of the month right here on this forum. “the ban on guns in the UK has increased crime”. It’s a joke right? We live in the murder capital of he world and even the UK State Dept (or equivalent) issues travel advisories for people intending to go to the US, to stay away from certain neighborhoods in the major cities in the US.

  • dan January 12, 2011, 3:59 pm

    If a politician had not been involved in this evil act then, normal news coverage would have ensued. As such this event is a direct attack on their power and safety for their ilk to continue to lie and steal from the “American public”
    If they do not tighten down and try to confuse by slander not facts,then they risk the chance that more “peasants will study the carnage and understand that evil begets evil and this country is in the grasp of a evil mindset that says, “do what I tell you and believe what I say, no matter what you THINK you know, I know what is best for you and yours.” And ” You will Obey the choices we have made for you Without question.”…Those that point the finger of blame ARE the evil that is wrecking this country

  • jeff kahn January 12, 2011, 3:52 pm

    And on the subject: Right, left, it’s all Mainstream Media. It’s all entertainment. They’re all owned by Multi- national conglomerates selling commercials. And that goes for the politicians too. So what’s their incentive to “tone it down”? Nothing. If they tone it down we stop watching. So what’s the solution. Turn off you Televisions. Turn off the radio. Stop paying for this madness. Get your info from John Williams, Jim Sinclair, the FT, and other real news sources.

  • jeff kahn January 12, 2011, 3:42 pm

    “It appears that nothing — let me repeat that word: n-o-t-h-i-ng — can hold this little sonofabitch down for long. ” Off the topic perhaps, But when even the contrarians throw in the towel, the market is close to cooked.

    • Rick Ackerman January 12, 2011, 5:25 pm

      This may seem paradoxical, Jeff, but I completely agree.

  • Mercurious January 12, 2011, 3:30 pm

    Most of the effective rebuttal to Mario’s soy sauce induced polemic has been made above but please let me pile on: What is going on re criticism of gun rights, freedom of speech–even hate speech–is a blueprint for how free individuals in societies where government REPRESENTS them are turned into slaves government OWNS. Mario, you feel safer in China than Chicago; fair enough. Would you feel safer in Berlin in 1939 or Moscow in 1940?

    Once again, random individual violence is trumpeted as the real problem when, by sheer numbers, it is GOVERNMENT in centuries past that has developed mass killing technology, and organized killing into a vast machine. What Mario seems to be incapable of fathoming is that the same human species that kills two or 12 randomly is the species you’ve just turned your defenseless fate over to when you give all the guns to government.

    Europeans will never understand this, but Jews who fought the resistance in the sewers of Europe would. What Mario doesn’t seem to realize is that we are being feminized to demand SECURITY over freedom. I don’t blame women for this, they’re hard-wired that way for the most part. That’s why men go out and club the intruder in the garage. But governments today are in the position to totally control populations, and once the gloves are off, your life is no longer your own.

    Mario, stay in China where you are happy. You are fit for a society where rights flow from bribing public officials and the right to assembly gives TPTB a smaller target, where poisoning food and water and products has no consequences if you are connected and don’t get discovered by the foreign press. I hope Americans remember, and all those folks world-wide who called us yahoos for keeping gun rights sacred, when they are subjugated, turn our backs on you.

    One last thing: Anyone who thinks they are bigger thinkers than the founders of this republic just showed their ass in a big way, and that’s not good. If you want to see near-term thinking, your post was it. By all means, buy street security now so that government can come knock on your door in the middle of the night later. It’s good that you’re a China booster. That should keep you safe for a while.

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 6:12 pm

      Merurious, you write well and make great points.
      And at the same time I don’t hesitate to remind you that there are many, many wonderful, GUN FREE countries all over the world apparently then also showing their ass to you in a big way. I’ll stick to what I said. NO GUNS.

      I will NOT accept anyone on this board crossing politics, view on China and America with the reality of what makes a society work better, safer, etc. Keep racist, biased anti-China sentiment OUT of these conversations and do NOT accuse me of being pro-Chinese or pro or anti American or anything like that because I am not any such thing, I write, I make arguments based on practical reality. And in the practical reality from my point of view, guns make the society a much worse place to live than a better place to live according to the evidence. Again, ask the police.

      Thanks and Cheers, Mario

    • Steve January 12, 2011, 6:32 pm

      10 years in police work – YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG Mario.

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 6:45 pm

      Great job across the board Mercurious. I back your comments 100%. I appreciate Mario’s contributions and I believe that he’s genuine in his motivations but I have to respond to his comments on this one. Mario, I don’t interpret this as racist or anti-Chinese in any way. What it is, is pro-liberty and distrusting of governments regardless of which flag they fly (“democracy” etc.), and with very good reason: The History of All Governments. Maybe your time-series data samples aren’t as long as they should be Mario. Maybe you’re declaring victory too soon in some cases. Maybe what you’re effectively describing is a peaceful prison yard. Yes there’s little violence. Why? Because the “authorities” have snipers in turrets above the prison yard and around the perimeter. That’s peace that you can keep. We should trust all police, all the time, everywhere right? Look at how corrupt the “police” are in most countries. I’ll ask my neighbor that’s not in law enforcement for a more unbiased outlook on firearms. As far as making arguments on practical reality, I think that making them on principal is a better approach and again, I’d point to human history. Expediency is rarely a long term solution that doesn’t spawn many negative unintended consequences. Again, see “well-intended” government policies and you’ll find thousands of examples. You are thoughtful when it comes to responses Mario. I respectfully request that you address the alternatives to legally purchased firearms, that is, how you’re going to account for illegal and homemade firearms, and other items like bombs and chemicals etc. Do you not expect the crazies or sleepers to adapt as they have in “peaceful” countries?

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 7:13 pm

      I am wrong to trust those in charge because its an idealistic wish that in practical reality I can’t have. My set of desired rules, ie no guns, implies that the guy put in charge to protect us doesn’t become corrupt and reality as you said of the history of governments shows at some point that they breakdown and turn against the common people directly or indirectly. Meanwhile, you aske me but I can’t pretend to have a comprehensive set of answers for complicated societal situations, how to prevent illegal arms, etc. Tough stuff…. Hell, we can’t even step outside of the system which, like secession, sounds like we should have the right to do it. But then our butts are hanging out unprotected again and someone will surely come along and take what we have. Can’t win?

      Cheers, Mario

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 7:17 pm

      Hi Steve, you must have your reasons so state them because your comment is the very first time in my entire time on planet earth that I have ever heard it suggested that a policeman’s job is easier and better with guns on the street. I’m not going from first hand experience on the subject so asking what’s your key points on this?

      Cheers, Mario

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 7:32 pm

      Mario, I wouldn’t presume to know Steve’s answer but my guess is that he’ll tell you that the incidence of crime would be much higher and thus the job of an officer would thus be more difficult and more risky.

    • Steve January 12, 2011, 8:43 pm

      There are two kinds of people in this world from what I believe to be a DNA aspect, and/or under Natural Selection. There are those who take responsibility, and there are those who want others to do it for them. I personally saw, witnessed, and dealt with the damages of abuse at all levels. Guns in the total view of things were a very minor problem.

      Always remember something about enforcment work. Fully 33% are there because of their want to control others and in fact want the power to abuse by badge. (there are a bunch who want all disarmed for this reason) I believe 33% are there because they want control over their own lives. And about 33% are there as public servants.

      Remember that the sheriff in Arizona should be tried for his crimes in breach of fiduciary duty in breach of Oath of Office for his mistakes in good judgment in regard to this shooter. The sheriff is a problem, not a solution. Next election cycle one will see if the sheriff is the problem, or the majority of people lack DNA to be responsible for their lives, and the lives around them.

      Responsible people with firearms were not the problem while I was in law enforcement, and these people were rarely harmed in an adverse encounter with a bad guy unless they were not bearing arms. The opposite can be said about the people who expect the police, or government, or some other person to do it for them. Most got hurt because they refused to do anything in their life that sent non-verbal communication that it was not a good idea to mess with them.

      One piece of my training was by the National Crime Prevention Institute via University, Kentucky. There is a thing called ‘displacement’. It works in regard to animals, and it works in regard to people. An aggressor can ‘smell’ who to attack by their non-verbal communication. Thus, a bad guy will select his victim based in the presentment of person, house, and vehicle. In other words Mario the bad guy will select the easiest target upon which to perpetrate a crime, he displaces to the easiest target.

      There was an anology in regard to the safety of a prison in this thread. A genuine Federal Prison is a hell hole of crime including murder.

      Men who knew much more than any of us said this; ‘When the government fears the people there is Peace/Freedom/Liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.’ Liberty comes at a price, and it is my belief the price is being ignored by people who just want to feel good. From my perspective Mario you live in tyranny, and are willing to accept tyranny. Thomas Payne is said to have written in The Rights of Man that an Englishman is so beaten that he will fight to remain beaten down under a king.

      From my perspective Mario automobiles should be banned, as should alcohol as the most damaging things the world has ever seen. I have seen way more death, dying, and damage by cars, and intentional ingestion of alcohol as an excuse to commit murder by intent, and negligence.

      I was only shot at once. I only had to cock my Smith at the temple of my former friend once as he grabbed a Savage 303 from his truck after abusing his son with a pair of pliers. I had two men try to run over me with cars, one with a snowmachine. I used a nightstick to disarm two with knives. Faced three at once armed with a club who thought they could take my nightstick from me. Can not remember how many tried to hit me with something, or kicked me though I carry a scar on my right cheek from a boot which is classed a ‘deadly weapon’. Today there is a different perspective in enforcement because today an officer would have shot the drivers of two cars and one snow machine, and put a number on 2 guys with knives. Where do you see the problem Mario from my perspective?

      From my perspective Mario I wish you were highly trained in fireams, and willing to stand at my back. Therein I could find security and Peace.

      I challenge you to provide me with the names of any wonderful country that bans ownership of firearms for protection of themselves, and the State. Within that challenge it will necessary to examine the difference between the DNA of people who Live in Liberty, and those who demand others take care of them. I will examine the countries from my perspective from a line of people who took the cannon and powder to Concord Bridge, and from my perspective as a Man who has lived at Liberty and spent 10 years doing it while armed, and 60 years living, though today I feel oppression by the ‘will not take a stand persons’ who want a KING over them at micro and macro level.

      Why should I carry a firearm and die for you Mario, if you are not willing to do the same for me. OK, no one should have any weapons – that is just plain ignorance. It will work when a master computer examines the minds of all and destroys evil intent. In that case I would not want to hold the mindset of many in power today. After the computer lazer is done we just might as well have a machine society.

    • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 9:20 pm

      Nice post, Mercurious, but it’s no use. Mario is immune. Until now! When I’m done with him here, he’ll have no other choice than to accept the fact that the right to bear arms is the way to what he seeks (no dictators).

      They say hunters don’t need high capacity automatics. Well, tell that to a hunter who might some day find themselves surrounded by a hungry wolf pack. I say wolf because here in my urbanized area of NW Indiana, I’ve been seeing more them of late, whereas before I never saw a one. Not surprising, really. People aren’t hunting as much and are conserving ammo in this recession. The deer got thick for a little while, then they started to show up as roadside carcasses, as well as in my literal backyard. Now instead of the occasional one, I see pairs and trios of wolves. Someone will be mauled some day, but no matter… People will learn that nature is meant to be taken seriously.

      So a hunter can conceivably need automatic firepower, if only to keep up the noise to drive them away (though it never hurts to take a few out, to show you mean business, and not having to reload keeps up the fear factor, as well as the chance to hit. All that means less chance of being eaten!).

      And that being the case, some will need to be rationally paranoid, to keep those owners of automatics in check. But, oh, the CRIME, right? Not so fast…

      If other people were allowed to keep similar armament, there would be competition for the limited resource, and the ONLY thing matters in ANY gun: Ammunition.

      So while high capacity turns out to have some uses in tight situations involving animals, it necessarily promotes peace rather than aggression among man, by the laws of supply and demand. This also extends to a nation’s military, so the freer and more able people are to live in competition, the less chance of a dictator showing up in the first place.

      This also says much about the regulations we are forced to live under. We are the world “police force” and our military consumes lots of ammo, which they wouldn’t be able to do if people could keep automatic weapons. So not only can it keep the peace on the national level, but personal ownership of automatic firepower would also bring about much more peace in the world, much more quickly than with the ban.

      So without liberty, one seeking peace is destined to be forever frustrated. And be eaten by wolves 🙂 (not kidding, but it sounds funny)

      Ben’s educational hour is now over. I hope it’s been, er, educational. Going off air… (cue the anthem, and GOD BLESS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!)

    • Jim N January 13, 2011, 3:00 am

      I’ve really enjoyed the honest posts by all especially my you guys…Mario, Steve and Ben. Thanks Rick for opening this up. I appreciate the civility in the discussion compared to most places.

      I come from the point of view of living in Europe for 6 years traveling and living extensively with the folks there. Included is many months in E Europe and the then Soviet Union. I also come from a pretty committed but not “wear it on your sleeve” Christian faith.

      Mario, i need to comment on you bringing in the race or racism card in the discussion. You know i see this brought up when things aren’t going well in the discussion. So we need to call this attack racism. I don’t think this is the case at all. There certainly are huge differences between China and America or Russia, or Eastern Europe, or greece. Each have had a history and a culture that has been shaped for centuries. Each claim to be better than the rest. Having lived in europe for a significant period i have come to love many things about it and its culture. But there were also things that i as an american just couldn’t understand and grasp. Personally, most of those differences just were that differences. I could choose to critize them and try to tear them apart, all from a position and standpoint as a bad ass american. Or i could to recognize that they are part of the culture that continues to change and evolve.
      We certainly can have friendly discussions about them, but there will always be huge differences and opinions.

      America is a great place to live. It has its issues but after living overseas for a while, I am able to disect the differences between america and other countries a bit better. There are good and bad differences. Steve/Ben focused so clearly on the liberty we enjoy. There is much more than other european and asian countries. You bet. But there was/ is a cost for this liberty. Actually it came about because the DNA of the people who moved here from other countries took the huge risk to come for the taste of living in liberty and freedom. This is an essence of the 2nd amendment Mario. did you know that? gun rights are just a small part of it. I do not see one other country that has the same kind of freedom one finds in the US. If so i would probably move there.

      I have never visited China, but would love to someday ( i love to travel and have europe/russia areas covered already!) . Even though China is probably very beautiful with some wonderful people i wouldn’t want to live there. Why? Lack of freedom and liberty. I couldn’t live looking over my shoulder…worrying about the government. It is not a place where LIBERTY is important (for various reasons). Not a judgement just my factual opinion. Some people wouldn’t care. I just can’t live in a place where you can’t honestly speak your mind. The guy who did and won a pulitzer somehow didn’t get message or a plane ticket. Gee there is real freedom.
      Some can choose to live there and go about there routine until they die. Virtually no chance for change or revolution. The government has the guns and has no fear of the people. That is a part of their historical DNA. It has ALWAYS been that way in China. I react personally to that, as my historical DNA tells me that this is absolutely wrong from a human perspective.

      So why do other countries focus on our guns? Steve what a great post….just want to tell you i agree 100%.

      I personally had to decide to what measure would i take to protect my family. I personally think that things in the world will be getting much , much worse….desperate people do desperate things (or dersperate countries??) As i really considered this, i never thought i could ever kill anyone. Then a very interesting scenario was put to me. If i saw a gang of people coming into my house with the clear intent to kill and rob us, rape my wife and daughters.. what would i do? Think it through Jim. Where i stood at that time…the answer is nothing. Maybe wave my fists at them and tell them nicely to go away. Think about it Jim… How far can i let them go? I finally had to be honest. I would do whatever i could to stop them. Anything. I am there to protect them. Law Enforcement does not have the primary responsibility to protect me, they will enforce the law when it is broken. They would like to stop every crime but can’t be everywhere.

      If I need to stop them, i can. I have that option now. So now i am armed. I have taken a significant amount of training and do believe that the two must go hand in hand. Interestingly, the instructer of my last defensive arms class, an Army/ law enforcement vet….drilled into us the importance of walking away from a fight. That a gun is the very last option to use. I know i am much safer when my neighbor, collegue or friend carries. He/she really understands the real life/death issues involved and will only use it when it is absolutely necessary. Interestinly, one of the guys who captured the Arizona shooter was armed, but never pulled….there is a man well trained.

    • mario cavolo January 13, 2011, 3:10 pm

      Hi Steve,

      Anyone including myself must have great appreciation and respect for your post and say thank you. The points you share are very meaningful and valuable particularly as you present them in the context of your own experiences. Thank you very much and I’m sure I say that representing many of the others in the discussion. I do realize what my “sentiment” is on guns but I also have to see and respect the many other views expressed here which well show its not as black and white as I wish. Its getting harder and harder in today’s world to find a balance between healthy paranoia, freedom and the right to have arms to protect oneself and one’s family. Many of us here express our points strong and clear but we learn to allow each other space and respect too. Its a great view you’ve shared.

      Cheers, Mario

  • Cam Fitzgerald January 12, 2011, 3:07 pm

    I am not sure that a Sarah Palin campaign can survive the damage inflicted by the many assocations drawn to her as a result of the recent tragic events. Incredibly though it seems to have boosted her profile. More worrisome to me though is how the nations focus has been deflected from the usual threats from abroad as it now instead turns the sights inward and on itself. Let’s hope some of the wild rhetoric of the past few days has a short shelf life and cooler heads prevail. Confrontation and polarization might just be the unfortunate outcomes of the current situation. In the political world where an easy opportunistic victory is sensed as an outcome of events, the real victims often end up beng compromise and cooperation.

  • SteveV January 12, 2011, 3:02 pm

    There were images reposted on websites of the image of states with crosshairs and Democrat names that Palin originally had on her website but that was taken down immediately after the shootings.
    Since the elections were over in November, the timing of its removal is suspect. It strongly implies that Palin realizes her Caribou killing gun rhetoric is at least irresponsible. Otherwise, why remove the image at all?

    So why don’t Palin fans support her decision now that she speaks with her action – or removing the image, which tells everyone that she is fearful and in full retreat (not reloading).

    Especially because there is a clip of an interview where Giffords specifically mentions possible consequences of Palin’s targeting image and rhetoric – long before the shootings.

    It seems Giffords was both prescient and wise in her thoughtfulness when she spoke then – something Palin can never be accused of.

    • Robert January 12, 2011, 11:36 pm

      “So why don’t Palin fans support her decision now that she speaks with her action – or removing the image, which tells everyone that she is fearful and in full retreat (not reloading).”

      – An equally potent question might be:

      ” Why does Sarah Palin have any fans at all?”

      The woman seems less intelligent that GWB if that’s even possible.

  • Kevon January 12, 2011, 2:48 pm

    Perhaps if he had used an SUV to mow the people down some would be calling for a ban on SUV’s. Gun ownership was clearly to protect the citizens from the government. Take a look back in history of the numerous countries where guns were confiscated then the people were suddenly oppressed and murdered. Thou shall not murder.

  • Enrico Rusticali January 12, 2011, 2:15 pm

    The words “presidency” and Sarah Palin should never be used in the same sentence. The only reason the establishment was going to put her in office was another affront to reasonable thinking people in America. After Ronnie and “W” anything is possible.

    • Jose Padilla January 12, 2011, 6:20 pm

      How’s that Bankster ButtBoy BHO working out for ya? JP Morgan’s Chief Government Lobbyist now directing the Teleprompter in Chief what to say and how to think as his Chief of Staff. And Larry Summer’s replacement another Robert Rubin guy and Goldman Sachs’ million dollar bonus baby. Middle Class America is screwed.

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 6:25 pm

      Did the establishment put Barry in there? Here’s someone that effectively did nothing. Almost immediately upon being placed in the Senate by a machine he announces that he’s running for the highest office. His record of achievement? That’s right, crickets and having a few books about himself ghost-written. Go read “American Narcissus” and then please inform us what exactly screamed “President” about Obamao to so many people.

  • donniemac January 12, 2011, 12:51 pm

    To live in a free society is to live in a society that is inherently dangerous. As I listen to the gun control advocates, the only thing that comes to mind is this man was too young to have a mental illness record. So, short of a complete ban on handguns, nothing would have prevented this from happening – except –
    A deliberate move to tone down the rhetoric. If you go back to the 60s when it was the left, with the exception of Kent State and the DNC convention(and that is debatable), providing the fireworks and what has gone on as political debate with the right/2nd amendment rights supporters, it is the atmosphere created by media political types and certain politicians that sets the national tone. And when it tilts too much, the unhinged will destroy the decision of the ballot box. The Pallin crosshair map in of itself was not a big deal, Democrats used one in 2006 I think, it was the constant bombardment of weapon imagery and vocabulary (lock and reload, gather your armies), twisting of the Constitution (2nd amendment remedies to remove duly elected opponents), and the downright dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric (“take out Giffords” – part of her opponents media ads) that most on the left find objectionable.
    What we need as a nation is for our elected leaders to show their constituents that the other party is not the enemy or unAmerican or a fascist or a communist. In fact, I would venture to say that rhetoric will backfire for if the next Hitler or Stalin ran for office, the terms would be so worn out as to mean nothing (the boy who cried wolf). So it is not Palin’s map that is the problem, but her take out mentality that is the issue. Like the liberal rhetoric that led to campus bombings (talk about unhinged, they mostly blew up themselves), the current weapon based rhetoric encourages the mentally unstable.
    Finally, we need to have a frank and fruitful national debate on where our nation is headed. Are we going to provide the means for everyone to not have to go bankrupt, or forgo medical treatments, to have access to medical care? Do we want to handicap our businesses competitiveness with spending on benefits such as retirement and medical costs? Do we want to support a military complex that spends enormous amounts of money on actions in far flung parts of the world, and if so, what are those actions? Are we going to truly follow Keynesian economic theory or do we want to follow a more austere theory? Both have their weaknesses and strengths if followed with discipline. Do we want to spend on parks, recreational areas, national forests, etc. to provide a wonderful world of recreation and protect areas of natural beauty? The list goes on and on.
    But what now passes for political debate, from the Democrats taking any Republican to task for wanting to address Social Security and Medicare to Republicans using the unAmerican label on policy and bills they disagree with and everything in between (conversely, Republicans taking Democrats who are opposed to, say the wars in Afganistan or Iraq or Panama, to task for that lack of support of America and George McGovern labeling the anti-tax movement of the late 70s unAmerican shows how the rhetoric flips) has degenerated to elementary school playground banter and cruelty. IMHO, we need grownups to get back in control, in both parties. We need to put the Limbaughs and Becks and O’Reillys and the Schultzs and Olbermanns in their place, which is entertainers who speak with a very big bias. In this area, the right has a big lead on foulness and mis information but the left is trying to catch up. We also need to get people to understand that no news source has ever been “fair and balanced”, the closest we came to that was in the early days of radio and TV newscasts. The fact that 70-80% of our population has Fox news as its’ only news source is not good. And finally, all of us need to be very skeptical of what comes across our computer screen, talk about a fantastic source for misinformation.
    My thoughts anyways 🙂

    • Cam Fitzgerald January 12, 2011, 3:15 pm

      Really interesting thoughts too Donniemac. You hit on so many really good points. It got me thinking.

    • Robert January 12, 2011, 5:32 pm

      Bravo DonnieMac!

  • DJI January 12, 2011, 7:56 am

    @ Mario – So you represent 99% of the foreigners living in China? That sounds perfectly credible. In a way you belong in China, along with all the Chinese slaves (yes, all these wonderful products imported into the U.S. are made with Chinese slave labor). You see, Slaves do not own guns. Free men and Free women own guns. It’s OK with you to not own guns because you are living in the upper class in China. It’s OK with you to not have property rights, forced 1 child policy, no free speech and all the other ills that centrally planned government brings us because you are part of the upper class. The upper class will eat wholesome organic food while the masses are left with aspartame, GMO, and fluoride filled diets. The masses that are not wealthy, they have no means to protect themselves against a lawless government (just like the one we have here in the U.S.) I suspect here in the U.S. when the SHTF, the hoards of hungry mobs will attack those who are unarmed as they are the easiest targets. Those who are armed, will survive. Thank God for our U.S. Constitution, and thank God for the 2nd Amendment. Btw, you should read up on your Chinese hero Mao Zedong. One of the greatest mass murderers of all time (45MM dead). Just think if those 45MM people were armed. They would be alive, and as you put it, eating Rabbit stew.

    • Gary V January 12, 2011, 8:30 am

      Not bad DJI. I was thinking a lot of these same things reading Mario’s comment. The Chinese government are completely unaccountable to the people they control. They confiscate land, fill in lakes, flood towns, pollute groundwater, you name it, without any review or recourse by those affected. I think this is why we have a 2nd amendment. The founding fathers understood that the threat of corruption requires the threat of revolution. I spent some time in Shanghai this year and got to know some Chinese colleagues. They told about how depressing it is for them to know about the pollution and questionable food products etc. and feel completely intimidated at the thought of doing anything about it. Yeah, I thought it was pretty neat walking around at night without worrying about getting shot, but if I wasn’t a visitor, I’d have plenty of other things to worry about.

    • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 11:30 am

      He was right about one thing. The Founders didn’t imagine it. Nor did they have to, because they knew already…


      Even if Franklin and Jefferson were not men of science to understand that we would have them someday, they had plenty of history that showed them that mankind improves on his technologies. And still they “allowed” the natural right to self defense.

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 5:59 pm

      a valid set of points but DJI way way over the top on the negativity and chinese racism as I read it. We can always talk about exceptions as an approach to refute… don’t want to go too far off article topic….thanks and Cheers, Mario

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 6:03 pm

      Gary and DJI, while I do understand your points, the idea that having guns in today’s world has any meaning or significance with respect to the original idea of making another revolution against a corrupt regime is a tough argument to make. Its simply not executable by any means and so in the context of today’s world ( and that is the only way I put forth my argument, not as an absolute) there goes the benefit of the “right to bear arms” as originally intended.

      Cheers, Mario

  • DG January 12, 2011, 6:51 am

    I sure hope the heavy hand of big pharma lightens up enough to allows us to know if this nut was on antidepressants (or recently stopped). It seems way too coincidental that these kinds of mass shootings are connected with antidepressants. Ft Hood, Columbine, V Tech, it is a long list. He fits the profile to a “T”. Notice how that little tidbit never gets much play?
    I doubt we will ever know, but instead blame it on gun control, Rush Limbaugh, sheesh I haven’t thought of it – but it could be due to global warming! Anything, but please don’t mention antidepressants! The shills piling on these distractions are simply tools for pfizer and Lilly. They love it! Thanks!
    Why don’t we do a real failure analysis and understand this nut before we politicize it? What if antidepressants are involved? Will we attack them as quickly as we are willing to attack the first or second amendment?

    Do your own research. The coincidence of violent death, either through suicide or homicide and antidepressants is much more than random. And yet, somehow, the FDA looks the other way. (it couldn’t be the nearly $10 billion in sales)

    Maybe they aren’t involved. I’d lay odds they are.

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 7:02 am

      nice DG…big pharma medicating the “prozac nation” with antidepressants like candy, and in fact all kinds of other prescription meds because daily maladies have been classified suddenly as diseases and disorders which, oh gee, require prescription medicines that are being touted like infomercials on TV. Its bizarre and and it has become “normal” and it is another unfortunate aspect of that society.

      Cheers, Mario

    • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 8:20 am

      “Notice how that little tidbit never gets much play?”

      Yes. And that’s because the connection is more cherry-picking than anything else. What of Kaczynski, McVeigh, Koresh and the ATF, that guy who flew his plane into an IRS building, the DC Sniper, Stalin and Mao, the many serial killers in the nation’s history, not to mention the bloodiest sub-human in history, Genghis Khan?


      Of my sizable extended family of some thirty people, only two ever took any kind of anti-depressant and ever needed to. An uncle was hit hard after the loss of my grandmother, many years before there were drug commercials. He lost too much sleep and nutritition to just recover naturally, and so he needed them to get back on track. Things can and do snowball. As for myself, I’ve been taking a small does of 20 mg paraxotene daily for nearly a year, to block seretonin re-uptake, to compensate for what my brain doesn’t produce enough of, due to chronic pain and heavy sleep disruption. That, too, was a snowball. For three irreplaceable years I didn’t, nor would I hear of taking any such medication. Just as with my uncle and nearly everyone else who first refuses them, people mostly tough it out until they can’t anymore.

      As for commercials, that’s a more complex discussion than this topic allows. Suffice to say, they have their reasons for being, both good and bad, depending on what we’re talking about, and some ridiculousness cannot be used to paint a picture of the “typical American lifestyle”. As for the monsters which innocent drugs plant into peoples’ mind, gimme a break guys. Everyone has a breaking point. Including you. That you probably won’t ever find it changes nothing of your neuro-biological nature.

    • DG January 12, 2011, 4:21 pm

      Statistically, the data says that the odds of this are increased by a factor of 11. Hardly disconnected.
      It just seems that way if you don’t dig into the info.

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 7:00 pm

      Hi Benjamin,

      Indeed those medicines can be very helpful to the people whose cases properly identify and fit as intended. Over my 30 years I and I others I know have had my share of how life’s impacts can snowball as you say and in this regard, we can be grateful for good western medicine and western doctors.

      Cheers, Mario

    • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 7:53 pm


      I’m trying to see to it that Rick doesn’t regret allowing us to discuss this. In that interest, I decline further comment in this thread, other than to say that I never said there wasn’t a connection or no connection whatsoever. I only said that man is well enough capable of viciousness without them, and provided numerous examples where they didn’t take any such substances. If that is contestable, maybe I’m not the one who needs meds as much as some others….

  • Mike January 12, 2011, 6:38 am

    Mental illness in all it’s forms. it is one of the biggest problems the US and the world. To this day it is misunderstood and mishandled from the get go. I live in NJ and I am bombarded by it everyday in every way, Rick would know what I mean…

    • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 8:25 am

      Thanks for saying “and the world”, Mike. Your little post and that one inclusion makes it worth it’s word-count in gold ounces.

  • FranSix January 12, 2011, 5:57 am

    Don’t be shy to call this domestic terrorism, because that’s what it is.

    I immediately thought of Marc Lepine when I heard of it. Canadians should be less self-righteous on this occasion, because we have our own. These incidences occur in all democratic countries, like it or not.

    I also think Americans courageous for jumping the shooter at risk of life and limb.


    • warren January 12, 2011, 6:05 am

      I agree…..totally!

    • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 6:19 am

      “Don’t be shy to call this domestic terrorism, because that’s what it is.”

      And yet, they keep on repeating that he had no comprehensive motives. He was too crazy to have any, they keep saying.

      I don’t doubt that he broke down into a babbling mental state. It’s just that it can’t be called terrorism because of a lack of a clear goal, allegiances, etc. Even the suicide bomber/jihadits of the world have that much. Even the IRA had that much. Even the KKK, back in the day when they were political terrorists, had that much.

      An act of terrorism just doesn’t quite cut it. People blow gaskets, but even that doesn’t quite cut it, as he clearly had something against our chosen way of governance…

      “If words have no meaning, then what is government?”

      Come now, FranSix. How many of us here take the words of politicians and media as truth? He blew a gasket, but for what reasons. It’s not a question because it’s as obvious as a live piranha in your stomach.

    • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 6:25 am

      Sent the response off too, soon…

      And even if we just see an unstable individual picking up on the cues of a heating political enivorment, that it is so prevelent to be picked up on by random crazies doesn’t eliminate the responsibility of asking deeper
      questions and facing hard realities.

    • mikeck January 12, 2011, 4:10 pm

      Also, do not be surprised if we find out that he was in the CIA mind control program or on pharmaceuticals…it would not be the first time.

  • Benjamin January 12, 2011, 4:44 am

    Politics and media are both at the same time willing to turn this into a political opportunity as they are willing to take the fact of the shooter’s sanity as a sign of relief.

    Listen to how they’re talking, and it’s apparent they’re just glad that there exists the means to avoid calling more to into question. It is either a tea partier or some random crazy that did it. Democracy, on the other hand, is civilization. Democracy is innocent. Democracy could never result in this kind of behavior.

    Personally, I think the guy was nuts, but what I’ve noticed from all the shrinks in the news is that they don’t give more than a casual glance at the past few years, as well as pick out traits from his more distant past which favors the hypothesis in order to explain what happened.

    To explain how I know what all this means would be to open up a can of worms on my own past, which is what I don’t want to do (and what yall don’t wanna hear anyhow), but I will say that, in order to avoid the funneling of my life into a certain, pre-determined outcome, I took a path shown to me by my inner guardian angel/devil, realizing those other ways as a much deeper betrayal of all I held dear.

    A slower death, followed by an unceremonious burial in a grave I had literally already dug out for myself, was the better route than what I knew awaited me down any other path. But that can only last so long, being what it is and being what I am, and so even the slow route was abandoned. The impossibility of death being the answer suggests the answer isn’t all THAT impossible. That didn’t square with my growing insanity, and it was in fact a leap of faith more than anything else.

    Some, however, are not capable, whatever the reason, of making that leap. And just as some can’t make a leap of faith, nearly everyone “cannot live” without bossing everyone else around (the justification being based on how the majority feels about it).

    But that is not all. Anyone can read the Federal Register and see all sorts of new laws and revisions to existing laws that never were issues in the media, nor ever mentioned by your representatives.

    So the shadow government exists under the “empowering” and “liberating” mask of demonacracy. They depend on one another, and there is no way to make one clean while ditching the other (for those who would insist it can be made clean, especilly by the likes of such “middle-of-the-road-heroines” as Giffords).

    Under the oppression of a shadow government and the influence of its euphoric, protective distortions, some are going to lose it. It happens because we’re not insects in a hive who can live in endless distortion, but conscious individuals who require clarily and honesty.

    The defiance of our nature errodes into eventual and increasing disaster. So innocent kids will continue to die, whether by wild shooters bred by the system or by the unchecked beast of democracy. As for adults who indulge in crimes and deciets of their selves and others’ selves, I shed not a tear, but rub salt into their wounds. I told you so (!), but you didn’t want to listen.

  • SDavid January 12, 2011, 4:34 am

    This saddens me .. everything about it.

    But most saddening is how easy it is for US citizens to gain access to guns.

    I know ….

    “The right to bear arms blah blah blah.”

    But take two countries, side by side ….

    One with fairly strict gun controls and the other without.

    Gee, I wonder which of the two countries leads the way in stories like the one reported here.

    You’ve got Detroit ….. a hop skip and a jump and you’re in Windsor, Canada.

    Minutes of separation yet world’s apart.

    There is the US right to bear arms.

    In all its glory.

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 6:46 am

      …in the context of today’s world, the right to bear arms is one of the U.S.’s biggest problems and obvious mistakes, that to say it is a constitutionally inalienable right is shortsighted, idealistic nonsense and not applicable to today’s world. The forefathers of the United States were idealists and we have to thank them for what they did in terms of establishing a framework of rights and freedoms, but they did not imagine AK-47’s and laser-guided missiles when they included that provision, let me say it clearly, IN CONTEXT. Guns have no place in this world, in today’s context in the hands of private citizens. Ask the police.

      I and 99% of the other foreigners living here in China love the fact that there are no guns in sight anywhere anytime, and spare us with the “knives” argument, please, we can kill people with dinner forks too if we really want to. You want to call it a trade off of freedom, fine yes, that’s exactly what it is and we’ll take that tradeoff gladly so that the world doesn’t need “pope mobiles” and have to suffer this kind of senseless, shooting crap in our lives. People living in countries without guns laugh at the concept and stupidity and damage to the society of “the right to bear arms” in strict terms. If the individual person who wants one to go to shoot a rabbit can’t have one, oh gee sorry pal. Give a few people a right which then ruins and scares and haunts everyone else’s lives and takes away their freedom…oh that’s brilliant!

      Cheers, Mario

    • PhotoRadarScam January 12, 2011, 11:21 am

      The ban on guns in the UK has caused an INCREASE in crime, not a reduction. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

      The same thing happened in Chicago when guns were banned there.

      The reason a weapons ban works in China is because of the justice system is swift and harsh and without due process.

      There is a saying that says, “when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.”

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 12:28 pm

      Hi PRS, Yes a very good point that an entire society needs a comprehensive, integrated set of rules and law on any specific matter affecting the society. One cannot suddenly ban guns in America now, that would be so complicated because other parts of the system would have to insure that the guns at at the same time are also not still getting into the wrong hands….not easy to implement and execute after the fact for certain. Its much easier, thankfully, here in China and other countries all over the world where the government system didn’t let guns infiltrate daily society in the first place as part of their overall definition of what harmonious, safe, peaceful, free society actually means for citizens on a daily basis.

      What kind of crime went up in the U.K. and was it widespread, I mean like, did it cause women and children to be scared on the street in their daily lives because of knife and club-wielding gangs or what? Tough for the cops there if somehow the system banned guns but didn’t effectively shut down their distribution/availability to the criminals.

      Cheers, Mario

    • rmsimc January 12, 2011, 2:29 pm

      If you could wave a “magic wand” making ALL guns disappear from the planet then I would be happy to relinquish my Second Ammendment Rights. But until the drug dealers, car jackers, home invaders, etc are rendered harmless, I’ll continue to protect my family. Besides, history (yeah that pesky little side note that most no longer study) teaches that the end of freedom within any civilization begins with the disarmament of her citizens. I know…I’m short-sighted and narrow-minded and a relic from the 1780’s.

      Although from a personally pragmatic perspective, another “assault rifle ban” such as the one under Pres. Clinton would stand to appreciate the value of my collection faster than that of my gold bullion. There…I have now moved back into the twenty-first century. Wooo, that was close.

    • PhotoRadarScam January 12, 2011, 4:42 pm

      “What kind of crime went up in the U.K. and was it widespread, I mean like, did it cause women and children to be scared on the street in their daily lives because of knife and club-wielding gangs or what?”

      Gun-related crimes increased dramatically. The reason? Criminals become bolder when they know their victims are going to be unarmed. No thief will break into a home if he knows the homeowner might be there and that he owns a gun. Unarmed though? Sure, come on in! Once you’ve committed or if you’re planning to commit a few crimes, there is no fear or concern over a weapons possession charge. That’s the least of their worries. And for this reason, criminals will always have guns. The best thing you can do is arm the non-criminals and let them defend themselves.

    • Bradley January 12, 2011, 5:07 pm

      Amen, brother.

    • Bradley January 12, 2011, 5:11 pm

      (to SDavid I meant. There is a reason that the Army gives new soldiers guns but not bullets)

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 6:01 pm

      Cheers Mario. I see that you’re again supporting “authority”, trusting in it implicitly and have little concern how more emboldened the “bad guys” will be if they know that its open season on the sheeple.

      How safe are you when your home is under assault and you’re dealing with a 911 operator? How quick is the response? Answer: Never quick enough.

      It’s utterly amazing. Let’s eliminate mass produced guns. Does that eliminate firearms? Of course not, and that’s not to mention the illegal ones that will be smuggle in just like illegal drugs are now. Does it eliminate homemade bombs? If crazy folks or “sleepers”, that are used by TPTB to distract attention from the real crimes in the USSA, no longer have access to store bought firearms they’ll go black market, homemade or alternative (bombs). They’ll adapt if they’re intent on killing innocent people just like the middle easterners have done. If they can do it then crazy Americans can do it. You can research this or take it from me, where laws have been passed requiring gun ownership, home break-ins have dramatically decreased. The Swiss are typically cited as they should be. Why aren’t there more “insane” crimes occurring there? Or more murders? Is it possible that their culture isn’t as far down the sewer as the culture here in the USSA? That would be my guess. I also find it interesting that you have stated that you foresee societal unrest, potential violence, famine etc. and yet you’d strip innocent people of one of the few means that they have to protect their families, their homes, their possessions, and their means to provide sustenance should some sort of cataclysm require them to do so. I simply do not share your faith in the central planners, the elites and in the completely artificial reality that they are dialing up for us to continue uninterrupted in perpetuity.

    • mario cavolo January 12, 2011, 6:56 pm

      Hi rwd, I hear you and thanks as always for your thoughts. Its not much at all that I have “faith” in the state planners, rather than just seeing these societies operating as a whole, the ones with guns and the ones without guns and comparing the two, I see what I see. Undoubtedly such a scenario need to be accompanied by a society and enforceable law which makes it possible. You and others are suggesting that is simply not possible in the U.S. and its easy to see that is indeed the case there but not so in many other countries where as you say, behavior is not already so far down the sewer as it is there. I realize from all the arguments in these posts today that the core of my thinking is prevention in the first place and that in the complex society it is also too idealistic, yet I steadfastly prefer to live in a gun-free environment overall.

      Cheers, Mario

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 7:14 pm

      Mario, thanks for responding. As many others have referenced, look at it statistically if you wish. Governments murdering their own citizens total in the hundreds of millions. “Authority” or “TPTB” instigating war has caused hundreds of millions of deaths. Truly tragic loss as the result of lawful yet sane firearm owners: NO COMPARISON. You want to add in crazies, sleepers and criminals, still no comparison. But we all know that they shouldn’t be counted because eliminating guns won’t eliminate crazies or sleepers and will only boost the numbers of criminals. Wishful thinking and feeling better won’t change the numbers either.

    • Dave January 12, 2011, 10:57 pm

      Oh, Canada! Cyclamate, an artificial sweetener banned in the USA since the 70’s is legal and sold in Canada. Tylenol/aspirin with codeine are OTC in Canada. A murder by gun is almost unheard of in Montreal, the NYC of Canada. Get in front of a Quebecois vs. English separatist fight and you’ll see just how peaceful Canada can be. A Walmart in Canada is stocked like a 99 cent store in the USA as are their below par “super” markets. Plus 15% tax on most items. And keep a $CDN paper bill in your wallet too long and in falls apart.

  • John Jay January 12, 2011, 4:31 am

    The shooter was a nut.
    It was insanity not political rhetoric that motivated him.
    All the speculation by that Sheriff in Tucson about the nuts motivation is premature to say the least.
    Maybe the dog told him to do it.
    Hopefully cooler, more rational thought processes will shortly prevail.
    The last thing we need is another Patriot Act.
    Or another “celebrity” mass murderer.

    • Dave January 12, 2011, 11:21 pm

      Agreed. This guy was a complete waco. That’s all there was to it. Yet the political polarization in this country just couldn’t leave it alone. It has to be the other side’s fault. We’re headed down an ugly road and picking up speed.

  • Steve W January 12, 2011, 4:22 am

    I am not sure about Palin’s future, but the left has stepped in a cow pattie on this one. The more they talk, the more foolish they look because they accuse the right of the very thing they do themselves. This will eventually go away, unless the left decides to dismantle our free speech, or rather the political Right (the opposition) free speech. This tactic has been going on for years. For a deeper analysis of this, read the 3rd book of C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy That Hideous Strength.

    • dennis January 12, 2011, 3:57 pm

      While I have a lot of respect for RA, both you and he are way off on this one. There have been as many hysterical news accounts of this event as being the result of “left wing radicalism” rhetoric as there have of it being the result of “right wing” or “tea party” or “obamacare haters” rhetoric. Go to hulu.com and watch the news clips from the beginning of The Colbert Report 1/12/10. RA: saying it is “Just one mAn’s opinion” is a cop out, unworthy of someone who otherwise is thoughtful and I believe represents a voice of reason on so many other important matters.,


      I see that “Sarah Palin Unapologetic” is the lead story on Google news at the moment. Which left-wing politicians have been called on the carpet? Where are almost routine death wishes against President Bush being recalled? RA

    • Alan Baer January 12, 2011, 6:07 pm

      I would just want to skip over the politics of left vs right here – I am not an American, My mothers side came from there in 1902 however, I feel I can at least make comment. America has a problem, it is guns and a lot of people with very low tolerance for people getting in the way of their views – A crazy man, a gun, and an absence of community are at the root of this. All else is some one else’s agenda – Left or right – they are both in the pockets of people who vote with money ~ the angry disenfranchised will start voting with guns.

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 6:12 pm

      I’m responding to Rick’s response here. Rick, it’s so clear when they have activated an agenda, and what you mention here is so typical. This was likely pre-organized via something like “journ o list” and put into motion as the “crises” became fresh and to not be wasted. You know that its 100% propaganda when they are all harmonizing together and refuse to concede that they’ve used the very same language. Less than 1 second courtesy of Google and you can read page after page of lefties using “violent” language. As always, this is a distraction from the real crimes and problems as you know only too well, e.g., your reluctance to initially mention it at all.

    • dennis January 12, 2011, 7:55 pm

      RA: the ‘left wing” politicians I assume you are referring to are silly clowns who like the ‘right wing” politicians are spineless pimps who have been bought by and sell for Wall Street. We can waste time arguing about whether or not they have been ‘called on the carpet’ for equal time in equal numbers. They try and stay in their jobs jumping out in front of, or at least keeping pace with, the 24 hour news cyle. It is all they have; the only strategy they know or care to adopt. (a few exceptions, as always). Fiddling while Rome burns, a theme you have admirably and in many cases convincingly articulated.


      Granted, Wall Street’s pimps are to be found on both sides of the political aisle, Dennis. But as long as the right-wingers are zealously committed to overturning Obamacare, and to blocking nominees like Sotomayor and Kagan, they deserve our support. RA

  • Martin Snell January 12, 2011, 3:57 am

    Sorry Rick, but today you seem to be living on another planet. What is needed is rational discussion and as Stephen Colbert so aptly put it – “facts have a well known liberal bias”. It is the far right conservatives that have done, and continue to do, the real damage.


    Just one man’s opinion, Martin — and hardly one so far removed from earthly logic as your post would imply. RA

    • redwilldanaher January 12, 2011, 6:07 pm

      Nice commentary Rick. You hit on the political reality with regards to Palin I would guess.

      As for you Martin, your comments seem much more likely to have been transmitted from an extra-terrestrial location from where I sit.

      Google “bush crosshairs” and you’ll find page after page of “lefty” writers that employed similar language to Palin’s that all pre-date Palin’s comments. 2 things: Colbert and conservative. That’s all I need to know to know that I shouldn’t spend more time typing a response.

Do you want up-to-the-minute technical analysis and forecasts for your favorite stocks, commodities, ETFs? Join our Take Request Session on August 18th!

No, I'm not Interested